Matrix Games Forums

This thread will serve for errata for aircraft and their devices for the stock scenarios and for Babes, under the presumption that any Babes examples also exist in the stock scenarios. Those Babes issues that have to do with the new, Beta, aircraft ratings should be directed to Symon's "New Aircraft Data Files" thread.

This example is from Babes scenario 28-C, V10 (Dec 2011) but is from stock scenario data.

The image is from the aircraft display with drop tanks. There is no weapon for default load (normal range), but there is a weapons load of 2x bombs for reduced load (extended range). Presumably there should be no weapon for reduced load, as the 'with drop tanks' configuration for this aircraft seems to be only for ferrying (re-basing) purposes.

The configuration without drop tanks shows a torpedo for default load, and shows 2x bombs for reduced load.

Haven’t slogged through the all air algorithms yet but doing my best. There could be several different reasons for this but, all in all, I think it’s WAD, kinda sorta.

Beaufighters didn’t have drop tanks, except that a special 200 gal tank (1200 lbs) “could” be fitted for ferry missions. Operationally, it either carried a torp, or bombs. It had 2 long-range tanks in the wings (total, 58 Imp or 80 US gals – 480 lbs) and 2 additional outboard tanks could be fitted in place of the wing guns (total, 74 Imp, or 89 US gals – 930 lbs). Using the nominal long-range tanks allowed the plane to mount only the 18in Mk XII. The US Mk-13 was too heavy and could only be used on normal range missions. When the 2 outboard tanks were fitted and filled, the plane could only carry some 500 lbs (2x 250lbs) of bombs without exceeding max take-off weight. But no drop tanks.

As you can see, configuring airplanes to better conform to their reality will take months (a week, alone for the F4U series. Not sure if I got enuf oomph left to tackle that [8D]

Ciao JWE

I don't think that covers this example. Yes, I totally understand that a 'with drop tanks' configuration might be used for ferry only (I tried to say that in the item post but might have been unclear) and that the in-game 'drop tanks' might actually be representing other types of extra tanks that are not actually drop tanks.. The problem is that when you look at the pic above (which is that 'with drop tanks' config), the Reduced Load is greater than the Default Load.

The way the game engine works if it flies a mission within 'normal' range it would have no ordnance (meaning it would not actually fly any attack missions). But if it flew a mission in 'extended' range it would have ordnance. Even though in both cases it has the very same extra fuel tank (200 gal drop tank, representing the type of extra tanks you described rather than true drop tanks). That just has to be a typo.

There are some planes in the database that have no ordnance at all in the 'with drop tanks' config, meaning no ordnance in either Default Load or Reduced Load. I assume the initial intent was for this to be another such example. They cut and pasted the devices from the 'without drop tanks' config into the 'with drop tanks' config, then deleted the torpedo from the Default Load, but missed the step of deleting the 2x bombs from the Reduced Load.

BTW, the 'without drop tanks' config looks fine: torpedo + radar for Default Load and 2x bombs + radar for Reduced Load.

Ahhh, found the code part that does loads. Woof ! Almost don’t want to comment, because I can imagine the howls of outrage and demands that something different be done (probably 20 different somethings) directed at poor Michael. But … I’ll get with Michael on this and try to keep it under control, because it’s pretty complex and a change will be incredibly involved because there’s loads of unintended consequences. Anyway … here’s the deal.

Ordnance and DTs are subject to a matrix of potential loads and Ord/DT locations (conditions): They are not strictly independent, because some Ext Range load conditions depend on Norm Range load conditions. The matrix is very large. It’s so big, it would be easier for me to dump 8 sqdns into my test box and start regressing. Since anybody could do that, publishing the results won’t give anything away, so it makes sense to do that.

Publishing the matrix may well help modders come to a better understanding of both the stock load conditions as well as the multiple alternative Filter and Alt fields. What you are seeing is WAD. I’ve reproduced it and altered it many times. The rationale for it might be this, or might be that, but it is what it is. Once the matrix is published, you will be able to more intelligently adapt (modify) your planes.

For your example, the Nom Range DT replaced the Nom Range Ordnance (as it should), but because there are specific and well understood adaptations, the Ext Range DTs do not replace the Ext Range Ord (as they should not, under the circumstances). Your nom range DT config is for sweeps and GA and bears, oh my! Guns, not torps. Your ext range DT config allows for a couple bombs in addition to guns for sweeps and GA and bears, oh my! Not perfect, but adequate. No way to do an either/or, torps/bombs config for nom range DT missions, so something must get lost in the porridge.

Once you see the matrix, you will understand.

Ciao. John

OK. I get that GG/Matrix, et al has decided to keep lots of stuff internal/confidential. I respect that and realize that in various instances it accounts for things that, in the absence of seeing whatever they are keeping private, look paradoxical.

It probably would be a great help if they allowed that matrix to be published.

No, no. I will publish the matrix. I could develop it by repetitive regression of data files and thus anybody else could, so it's not something secret.

You will see it soon enough.

[ed] It's "my" matrix, and doesn't depend on anything else.

Ciao. JWE

I didn't mean publish it out of school, I meant if they gave permission for it's publication. They did that with a thing or two early on (I don't recall what but I recall them doing it).

Good of you to work that up, it will definitely add to the important tools available!

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I didn't mean publish it out of school

Nope, not out of school. Here's what I mean by a matrix; something done by iterative changes in a test bed.

This is in no way complete, because there's several more load conditions to do. Right now there's 1x-1x, 2x-2x, 2x-1x, 1x-2x. What needs to be done is 1:1-1:2, 1:1-2:1, 2:1-1:1, 1:2-1;1, etc.. i.e., 128 entries. They will be different. And it still won't be complete because it only goes up to 2. I'll make a spread sheet that goes that far, and include a note doc with thoughts, for the modding community.

An anal-retentive can do exactly the same thing using nothing but their brain, the editor, and the game engine. If they are a smart mathemetician they will see where this is going. A math guy who is a programmer can figure out how it's done. I do not, nor will I ever, violate confidence or intellectual property rules.

Ciao. JWE